Is there a way to eliminate war?

Why war? -- Why are soldiers willing to fight?

It is well-known that a population cannot be incited to make (support) war against another population to closely matching itself in customs; and that standards on this have been becoming less restrictive continuously through history.

Thus, it was easy to incite an American Civil War in the 1860s, recruiting soldiers on the basis of their disliking the differences in customs between North and South; whereas the less restrictive customs of recent time would not make for the possibility of recruiting armies of Northerners and Southerners will to slaughter each other over such petty differences in etiquette.

Note that it was, during the American Civil War, not the educated classes who resented differences in customs between North and South, but rather the common uneducated soldiers themselves who were thus so resentful enough to fight.

And, likewise to-day it is not the wealthy (educated) classes who resent differences in customs between nations, but rather the common uneducated soldiers themselves who are thus so resentful enough to fight (whether in Korea, Viet-nam, or elsewhere). These same soldiers would not, however, be willing to carry on slaughter between North and South to-day -- such minor differences in etiquette as were used to incite hatreds in the 1860s would (though the same still exist) be considered not so resentable to-day.

Can this principle be practicably applied, so as to eliminate war?

If the lessening in restrictiveness of customs in Europe hath by now made Europeans just as unwilling to fight each other as Northerners and Southerners (who fought each other in the American Civil War) are now unwilling to fight each other,

then could not a similar loosening of restrictiveness in customs to as to include mutual toleration of each others' customs between Europeans and Asiatics, eliminate the possibility of recruiting U. S. soldiers to fight Asiatics?

Could a literary climate of good-will also help bring about world-peace?

Would it help, in eliminating war, to outlaw literature advocating violence?

If so, would "literature advocating violence" include Christian literature stating that it was advantageous that Christ was crucified?

If so, the New Testament would need to be outlawed, for the sake of world-peace.

Religious Society of Friends' program to eliminate war:

The Religious Society of Friends ("Hicksite") traditionally had a standing rule that any member so much as bringing a New Testament to the meeting, would be expelled.

Likewise, any member knowingly intimately associating (especially, by way of intermarriage) with persons who were members of any denomination using any New Testament was to be expelled.

What is your (pl.) opinion? -- In your opinion, is this sort of rule necessary, justifiable, or helpful? -- Would it, if diligently pursued, suffice to eliminate war from the world?

If outlawing the New Testament, and outlawing associating with any persons approving the New Testament, might not suffice to eliminate war,

would not a law prohibitting discrimination (for jobs, housing, etc.) on the basis of national customs (such as attire, etc.) be in and of itself sufficient to eliminate war?

Or, in other words, since the idea of eliminating war by outlawing the New Testament hath already been tried-out [by the Religious Society of Friends] and been found unable to do so (eliminate war),

is it not an opportune time to try-out prohibitting discrimination (for jobs, housing, etc.) on the basis of national customs (such as attire, etc.)? [This might have to be done by a government, rather than merely by a religious group, however.]

How could this plan be compared with legislation to eliminate racial discrimination?

The legislation [already enacted in the 1960s] to eliminate racial discrimination was not even expected to have much of a chance at eliminating war,

simply because soldiers are typically recruited to fight more on the basis of discrimination against foreign customs, than on the basis of discrimination against other races or other physical types. So, to eliminate war, it would pretty much take a law prohibitting discrimination (for jobs, housing, etc.) on the basis of national customs (such as attire, etc.).

An advantage is that whereas the legislation (in the 1960s) against racial discrimination had to be enacted nationally (i.e., by the foederal government),

legislation prohibitting discrimination (for jobs, housing, etc.) on the basis of national customs, could readily enough be enacted locally, for starters, with considerable noticeable effect: once enacted by any state, it would be seen that citizens of that state (no longer resenting foreigners) would rather promptly refuse to enlist in the U. S. military; joining instead anti-war organizations.